Reinke v. Reinke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reinke v. Reinke

186 A.D.2d 1086, 590 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11782

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1086 (Reinke v. Reinke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reinke v. Reinke, 186 A.D.2d 1086, 590 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The parties’ divorce judgment expressly provided that plaintiff was not required to contribute to the support of the child of the marriage. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to modify that provision. Whether it was proper to exempt plaintiff from the duty to pay child support is an issue that should have been raised by an appeal from the divorce judgment. Defendant does not suggest that he lacks the ability to be self-supporting or that there has been a change of circumstances and, thus, has failed to assert a ground for modification (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The parties’ divorce judgment expressly provided that plaintiff was not required to contribute to the support of the child of the marriage. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to modify that provision. Whether it was proper to exempt plaintiff from the duty to pay child support is an issue that should have been raised by an appeal from the divorce judgment. Defendant does not suggest that he lacks the ability to be self-supporting or that there has been a change of circumstances and, thus, has failed to assert a ground for modification (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1086, 590 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinke-v-reinke-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack